The genome that characterizes a species emerges via a long, slow Darwinian process of natural selection. The menomes that characterize individuals also originate via a Darwinian process, but the selection is among neural circuits and occurs much more rapidly than the natural selection that drives speciation. That is the opening claim in Robert Fuller’s work on how brains configure themselves, and it describes something most people feel but rarely articulate: the mind remodels itself faster than the body evolves because the environment inside the head is more volatile than the environment outside it.
Once you have that distinction, you have the argument of this whole piece. Everything around us runs on at least four different clocks at once, and almost every bad decision comes from reading one clock and acting as though it governs the others. Biology is slow. Minds are fast. Markets are faster still. And the deep stories underneath all of them move so slowly that each generation believes it invented them. The skill worth having is not picking the right layer. It is holding all four speeds in view without letting any single one drive.
Why Minds Change Faster Than Bodies
The genome-and-menome framing is useful precisely because it refuses the flattering version of change. A species does not decide to adapt; it simply outlasts the versions of itself that could not. A mind does something structurally similar and calls it learning. Circuits that keep producing usable predictions get reinforced, circuits that do not get quietly abandoned, and none of that requires a conscious act of revision. What makes the internal version so much faster is that the selection pressure is also internal, so it does not have to wait on a generation to be born and tested. The head can run thousands of trials against a world it is only imagining.
That speed is a capability, and it is also the source of most of the trouble that follows. A system that can reconfigure its beliefs in a week will reconfigure them whether or not the week produced any real information. The environment inside the head is volatile because it is cheap to change, not because it is closer to the truth.
The Techno-Optimist Manifesto and Why Stories Replicate
Marc Andreessen published The Techno-Optimist Manifesto this week. It is now available wherever books are sold. The book is not new; the release is new. What is interesting is not the argument but its replication pattern. The techno-optimist frame has proven durable; it mutates, it picks up new evidence, it loses some of its earlier claims, and it survives. That survival is not accidental. It satisfies a real need: the need to believe that the direction of travel is upward, even when the terrain is rough. A story that meets a standing need does not have to be right in every particular to keep replicating, which is why arguing with its details rarely damages it.
Joseph Campbell spent a career on exactly this property. He noticed that the oldest creation stories, told by people with no contact with one another, read like each other because the patterns underneath them are shared. The specific characters change; the structure does not. That observation applies to a great deal more than the myths he was cataloguing. It applies to market narratives, to startup origin myths, to the way a framework like AI engineering gets retold every six months with new names on the parts. The story persists; the labels shift. Campbell’s point and Fuller’s point are the same point approached from opposite ends: Fuller explains why an individual can adopt a new frame in a week, and Campbell explains why the frame the individual adopts keeps turning out to be an old one in new clothing.
What the Dollar Did, and Why It Was a Story Move
This is where the market signal from today fits. The dollar dipped because bets on Fed rate hikes eased, and Treasuries gained on the same shift, which Bloomberg’s markets desk logged in its running account of the session’s currency and Treasury moves. The actual economic conditions underneath those bets did not change in twenty-four hours. Factories did not retool overnight, households did not revise their spending in unison, and no productive capacity appeared or vanished. What changed was the collective interpretation, the menome-level recalibration, faster than any single data point warranted.
The market wrap reads like a report on the economy, and it is nothing of the kind; it is a report on what a very large number of fast-reconfiguring minds now believe about the economy. Markets are a story market first and a value market second. The price moves when the consensus narrative adjusts, not when the underlying facts do, and the gap between those two events is where most trading profits and most trading losses live.
The same speed difference shows up in how we relate to people. There is a line from Paulo Coelho’s Manuscript Found in Accra worth holding: stay close to those who are by your side in happy times, because they do not harbor jealousy or envy in their hearts, only joy to see you happy. Avoid those who believe they are stronger than you, because they are concealing fragility. Stay close to those who are not afraid to be vulnerable. That advice maps onto the genome and menome distinction cleanly. External circumstances are slow to change. The internal arrangement of loyalties, envy, and honesty can shift in a single conversation, which is the good news and the warning in one sentence. Choose the people whose internal patterns match the direction you want to go, because proximity is a selection pressure whether or not you intend it to be.
Four Speeds at Once
The techno-optimist narrative survives because it names a real thing: compounding improvement is possible, and the people who keep showing up for it build something worth keeping. The danger is not optimism; it is forgetting that the pattern needs tending. Every generation rediscovers the same insight, gives it a new cover, and calls it a manifesto. That repetition is not a failure; it is evidence that the underlying structure is sound. The people who built the railroads thought the same. The people who built the internet thought the same. They were right about the direction and wrong about the specific vehicles, and the second half of that sentence is the expensive half. The direction outlasted the vehicle, and almost nobody who bet on a particular vehicle got to enjoy being right about the direction.
What is less discussed is the speed gap between the layers. A species genome changes over thousands of generations. A mind changes over weeks. A market narrative changes over minutes. A culture’s foundational stories change over centuries, slowly enough that each generation believes it invented them. The people who thrive are the ones who can hold all four speeds at once without letting any single one drive the whole vehicle. The trader who chases every narrative twist burns out. The founder who ships every trend burns capital. The reader who treats every new book as a revelation loses the thread that runs through all of them, which is the cruelest of the three failures, because it looks like diligence the entire time it is happening.
There is a quiet cost to speed at the menome level. When beliefs reconfigure faster than the world can test them, you get a kind of motion sickness: lots of movement, little forward progress. The cure is not to slow the mind, which cannot be done on purpose anyway. It is to anchor it to something durable. That anchor could be a craft, which has the useful property of telling you plainly when you are wrong. It could be a community of people whose patterns you trust. It could be the recognition that every new framework is just an older one wearing a different coat. The people who maintain that anchor have an advantage that looks like patience but is really a form of structural honesty.
The layer that outlasts them all is not the technology. It is not the narrative. It is the capacity to notice which patterns are actually working and which are just spinning. That capacity is rare, and it gets rarer as the rate of new layers increases, because each new layer arrives with its own vocabulary and its own reasons why the last one does not apply. The people who maintain it can tell the difference between a real advance and a well-marketed costume. They are the ones who ship work that matters instead of work that merely performs urgency.
The Techno-Optimist Manifesto is a good book. The menome is a useful model. The dollar will move again tomorrow. The stories will keep retelling. The only thing that does not replicate automatically is the willingness to look at what is actually there, without the layer between you and it. That is the skill worth keeping sharp, and it is the one nobody else can keep sharp for you.
Leave a Reply